We're not just Right, We're Really Right

Religion, Politics, & Culture: Defined and Explained

Supreme Court

Friday, June 29, 2012

Reflection of the court and Obama Care

Writer and theologian Francis A Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984) declared that we are living in the Post-Christian West. This was the impetus for his book How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (1976). The Court ruling today has pushed us further down the road of Western decline to the era of Post Constitutional America. The phrase was popularized in the book Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (2012) by Mark Levin. The premise of Ameritopia is that people will trade constitutionalism for utopianism. While I haven’t read the book, the contrast would seem to explain the environmental movement and parts of the welfare state. This would dovetail nicely with the Obama agenda.

Scoffers think that conservatives like me are way off base about the ramifications of today’s Supreme Court decision on Obama Care. I would like to use a few illustrations to express my view of what happened today. All analogies breakdown at some point but here are a few good ones to try to share my point of view.

I spent over two decades in various parts of the Episcopal Church. The last two years was with outcasts from ECUSA (Protestant Episcopal Church). In the 1979 Prayer Book, much of the theological heritage that would get in the way of theological liberalism was relegated to the section in the back of the book for historical documents. These documents contained ideas contrary or embarrassing to the atheists in robes that pretend to be representatives of Jesus Christ. In the same way, the Supreme Court has relegated the last shreds of the Constitution to the index in the back of the history books on the American experiment.

Another way to explain this decision is from the book that I just finished called Ben Hur. Written in 1880 by Civil War General Lew Wallace, the book bears little resemblance to any of the subsequent movies. Towards the end of the book, Judah—the character played by Charlton Heston—enters Jerusalem to find that Jesus had been tried and convicted in the dead of night and that the injustice of his arrest was upheld and compounded by both Pontius Pilot and Herod. Judah tries to rally his troops to stop the proceedings only to find his men were active participants in the crowd yelling “Crucify him”. In much the same way, the injustice of Obama Care was upheld by those sitting in judgment of the law when they clearly knew that they were partaking of a grievous evil for the sake of political expediency. Judge Roberts played both Judas and Herod in this tragedy.

Another illustration is the conflict between Jesus and the religious rulers of his day. The leader in the time of Christ had so distorted the Law that it no longer bore any resemblance to the writings of Moses. Jesus was the one that spoke with Moses in the burning bush but when he tried to explain the Law to the rulers of his day they tried to stone him for blasphemy. They had so distorted and perverted justice that they could no longer recognize it. They called evil “good” and good “evil”.

My last illustration to explain today’s ruling is lethal exposure to radiation. You can’t see it, smell it or taste it but by the time you know it happened you are already dead. Yes you may walk around for a few minutes, hours or days but the effects are irreversible because by the time you exhibit symptoms the damage has been done. The ruling today forever laid to rest the concept that the national government has any limits. The government now has license to tell us what to buy, what to eat, where to live, what to drive and to literally determine how long we should live. Today the State declared itself as our “god”. It will take a while for this new found power to manifest itself to much of the populous but the nanny government of Michael Bloomberg has been pumped full of steroids and granted a nationwide franchise. The ruling elites now have the tools to bring us the dystopian worlds of 1984, Brave New World and Atlas Shrugged. The Republic is dead and it will take a period of time before the mind of the populous notices the death of the body politic. (If they have their “bread” will they even care?)

We often have used the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot dying as the heat has been turned up ever so gradually over time. The frog is dead before it realizes that it is boiling. Well today the water evaporated out of the pot and much of our populous yawned.

The words of Deuteronomy 28 verses 15 thru 68 echoed in my head all day today. Verse 15 reads,

But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.

Today’s decision may be an historic day but it is not one to be celebrated. The Rule of Law and the Constitution received an ignoble end.

Posted by william on 06/29 at 05:01 AM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Thursday, June 28, 2012

SCOTUS Kills Republic

The United States of America July 4, 1776 - June 28, 2012 R.I.P.
Socialist Amerika created by judicial tyrannyJune 28, 2012

Posted by william on 06/28 at 01:55 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Dobson Should Embrace Rudy

Conservatives are once again poised to assemble their famous “circular firing squad” and should Rudy Giuliani emerge as the Republican presidential candidate, they plan on pulling the trigger.

James Dobson and a group of other evangelicals are threatening to throw their support to a third party candidate—to be named later—if Rudy is the nominee. This is the result of Rudy’s longtime support of legalized abortion. This smacks of the Ross Perot effort in 1992, which resulted in the election of Bill Clinton. Clinton won with 43 percent of the vote.

This presidential cycle will likely see a credible third party challenger from the Left due to the dissatisfaction of the anti-war fanatics. Dobson’s gambit will likely be a pale imitation of their efforts. If Dobson and company put up a third party challenger, it will be to the detriment of evangelicals and when it fails, it will justify the marginalization of social conservatives in future public policy debates.

Rudy is better on the war than any of the Democrats. If we are dead or in economic ruins, then all the social policies that we spend so much time fighting about won’t matter because we won’t be here to have the debate. Our national existence is on the line in 2008. Once the Sword of Islam is dealt with then we will have to time to look at these other issues.

Furthermore, should Rudy appoint the kind of judges that he says, we might end-up with Roe v Wade being gutted regardless of what Rudy said on the campaign trail. Why? Simple really. The kind of judges that support the War on Terror and law & order issues will tend to be the strict constructionist judges that would favor curtailing the overreaching intrusion of the courts beyond the limits of the Constitution.

Rudy certainly couldn’t pick any worse than did Reagan and Bush senior. Republicans have a terrible track record of picking justices for the Court. Picking judges reminds me of the old joke about marriage. It has been said that marriage is like fishing, you don’t really know what you caught until you get it in the boat. Ditto for Supreme Court judges.

The irony of Dobson’s position is that to get the result he wants, his best chance is to join with Rudy.

Posted by william on 10/03 at 12:10 PM
News & PoliticsSupreme CourtPermalink

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

South Dakota Abortion Ban: Bane or Blessing?

South Dakota has passed the most restrictive abortion ban in the country. Its authors have stated that they intend this to be a direct challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade.

This is the most divisive issue to hit the Conservative wing of the Republican Party since Harriett Miers was nominated to the Supreme Court. Many are saying that this is either a premature effort that will yield nothing or a folly that will only give red meat to the Democrats as we approach the mid term elections this year and leading up to the next presidential primaries in 2008.

Others argue that Roe should be challenged directly. It will be at least three years before the High Court will hear the case. This is plenty of time for President Bush to get one more nomination on the Court before he leaves office.

Those uncomfortable with this legislation say that the Court will simply refuse to hear the case. They argue that without the insertion of the standard “Exception Clause” i.e. rape, incest and life of the mother this whole exercise is d.o.a.

Since there is no case yet, it is difficult to see how this will play-out. My purpose in writing this blog entry is to flesh-out arguments that I don’t hear anyone else talking about since this story hit the news late last week.

First, let’s see what Mississippi and any other Conservative states might be able to pass. The Supreme Court bundled three cases together when they heard arguments on Roe v Wade. I’m sure they will do the same with this batch of challenges to Roe. If Mississippi gives their bill the generally accepted “Exception Clause” language, I think these nervous folks will calm down.

Second, there is the issue before the Court right now of “partial-birth” abortion. The ban on this type of abortion is perfectly acceptable with the majority decision in Roe but is considered by abortion supporters as a curtailment of abortion rights as they stand now. The wording of this decision will be a harbinger of where the Court is heading.

Third, South Dakota has definite State’s Right grounds to argue the Constitutionality of their bill. Additionally, because of how Roe has been implemented, there is state money (our tax dollars) involved in subsidizing the abortion industry.

Four, the “Exception Clause” is mostly a strawman argument (smoke screen) that allows prolifers to appear compassionate. In reality it makes their arguments opposing abortion weaker.

Please note that most abortions are retroactive birth control and abortions for rape and incest are statistically insignificant.

Let’s suppose that there is a pregnancy as the result of rape or incest. How would the procedure work to allow the woman to get an abortion?
Do you just take her word that this is how she got pregnant? Is it necessary for her to file a police report first? If a guy is prosecuted for such a crime, the child would be full term before the courts could adjudicate the matter. This leaves you with the sticky problem of what if the guy is found not guilt, and she had the abortion? Has she committed perjury or murder or what?

This line of reasoning not only leads to the wilderness of moral relativism but right back to where we are now. For it is not strictly Roe v Wade that gives us the current abortion climate, but the companion case released the same day as Roe, January 22, 1973. Roe allows abortion for the health of the mother, while in Doe v Bolton, we get the definition of health as convenience.

The medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

Any health exemption without a definition that closes this loophole is worthless in the hands of an activist judiciary.

Five, for those of you that want this issue to stop being political, I have one word of advice. Get the taxpayer subsidies out of the abortion decision and most of this abortion argument would disappear. I don’t what my money killing little black children just because the founder of Planned Parenthood though all blacks are “weeds” and hung-out with the German freaks that gave us the Nazi Holocaust. Children are God’s creation not things that we throw away.

Lastly, the lies of the pro-abortion movement are wearing thin with many. It is hard to keep the same old lies going forward decade after decade. The right balance of prayer and repentance will put this morbid practice in the dust bin of history soon enough.



Posted by william on 03/08 at 04:26 AM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Court to Hear Partial Birth Abortion Case Again

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Majority decision Roe v Wade

Proscribe��? is defined as “to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful: prohibit��?.

Therefore the majority opinion says that the State has the right to restrict abortion after viability. After viability is when the abortion procedure called “partial birth��? is done.

This form of late term abortion is when the baby’s feet are pulled through the birth canal and a device is inserted into the birth canal that either crushes or punctures the baby’s skull before the head has left the inside of the mother. This of course results in the mother giving birth to an already dead child.

It is barbaric that anyone would argue that you have a Constitutional right to kill a child in this manner but that is exactly what abortion supporters are arguing. Thankfully this issue is going before the Supreme Court where they will have a chance to reverse some of the damage they have inflicted on our society.

Maybe they will get it right this time and stop this form of premeditated murder.


Posted by william on 02/21 at 06:24 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Thursday, February 02, 2006

John Danforth Whines in Washington Post


A friend e-mailed me a copy of the Washington Post  interview with former Senator John Danforth. This article advocates that moderate Christians should rise-up to oppose the Christian Right and their involvement in the Republican Party.

Danforth cites such issues as gay marriage, posting the Ten Commandments, Terri Schiavo, embryonic stem cell research and other social issues as needing the wisdom of moderate voices. OK what is a moderate position on such issues?

Let�s look at the issues.
Is it ok to kill unborn babies as a form of retroactive birth control?
Is it ok to conceive children to harvest their body parts in the name of science?
Is it ok to have religion in the public square?
Is it ok to honestly acknowledge the intellectual and moral foundations of our Founding Fathers?
Is marriage between a man and woman the best way to raise children?
Is forcing acceptance of homosexuality upon me and my family a good thing?

Obviously there is no such thing as a �moderate� position on these and other issues.

You are either for or against such issues. They are either right or wrong. The one thing most of these issues have in common is that they are being advanced by judicial legislation and not the normal Constitutional processes that are setup under our form of government.

There was a time when the Episcopal Church was called the conscience of the Republican Party. Since then the Episcopal Church-in which Senator Danforth serves as an ordained minister-has left the Orthodox Christian Faith and descended into heresy.

The Christian Right is involved in politics to defend itself from the attacks of Democrats and liberal (moderate) Republicans. Now that the tide is turning and the Senator and his allies are losing, they are wandering about the country like a roaring lion seeking whom they may devour. (see 1 Peter 5:8)

Now, their last vestige of power, the judicial branch of our government, is shifting away from judicial activism and towards a strict constructionist view. This coupled with more minorities in the middle and upper classes and the demise of the Roosevelt era Democrats by attrition has left the political Left in demographic hell for at least the balance of the good Senator�s lifetime.

Once this truth has truly taken hold within the Democratic leadership, look for many of the Dinosaur Democrats to find reasons not to run for re-election.

Posted by william on 02/02 at 05:32 PM
Christianity & ReligionNews & PoliticsSupreme CourtPermalink

Saturday, January 21, 2006

This Rocks!


A friend sent this to me today.

Posted by william on 01/21 at 10:42 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Pompous Politicians Tarnish Senate Hearings

Samuel Alito is rapidly moving to confirmation as an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have succeeded only in using their allotted time for questioning the nominee as a platform for beating their own chests and pontificating on their own virtues. Judge Alito is treated as irrelevant to the whole proceedings. There is no honest effort being made to ask any meaningful questions of the Judge or to learn more about his views.

Mercifully, this dog and pony show is drawing to a conclusion. The biggest casualty in the proceedings are the pundits who have to endure endless hours of senile and irrelevant Democrats yearning for the good old days when they were respected and revered as the custodians of the national government and defenders of the Constitution. Fortunately, the fraud and myth of FDR is almost behind us now as the �greatest generation� slowly goes on to their eternal reward.

Regrettably, there is not a single Democrat in the Senate that believes the Constitution is worth defending any more. The Constitution is viewed as the Democrats biggest obstacle to establishing a socialist, workers paradise in the United States. They harbor a perverted fantasy that they can engineer a society that works the way the Soviet Union would have if they had been in charge.

When an office holder takes their oath to �protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic� they are at a minimum promising to keep us safe from the domestic threat posed by the Democrats. Sadly our nation appears to be infected with the same cancer that led to the fall of Rome two millennia ago.


Posted by william on 01/11 at 05:45 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Bush Serves-up �Red Meat� to the Republican Base

Posted by william on 11/01 at 12:41 AM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Friday, October 28, 2005

Bush Gets “Do Over” on Supreme Court

After proving that she probably would be a justice like Sandra Day O�Connor, Harriett Miers has thrown in the towel. While we held out hope that she would be a justice like Thomas or Scalia, it became less likely as the hearings were drawing near that this was the case. The more we learned about Miers, the murkier her core values became. She appears to be just another antinomian evangelical merrily going through life.

Miers gave us a break by stopping this train wreck before it went off the bridge. The real question is will President Bush give his supporters a real constitutional conservative that they can rally around or will he give us another pick like his father did? It has been truly amazing how timid that President Bush has been on domestic issues.

Perhaps the President will realize that the Democrats don�t want peaceful coexistence but to eradicate all conservative Republicans starting with him. Bush needs to get a spine and lead by example, not capitulate to his enemies. They want his head on the impeachment spear before the next election.

How this man can so compartmentalize his mind that the Global War on Terror is just but domestic enemies are to be appeased and not defeated is truly a marvel. He took an oath �to defend us from all enemies foreign and domestic�. If he would secure the borders, appoint the judges that he promised and reign in the spending of Congress he could elevate himself as one of the best Presidents in our history. I hope that the President will step-up and take advantage of this opportunity.

In the movie City Slickers, Billie Crystal�s line was �Life is a do over�; for President Bush, so is this chapter in his administration.

Posted by william on 10/28 at 12:13 AM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Thoughts on Hariet Miers

There has always been a coalition that makes-up the Conservatives within the Republican Party. On one end are the religious Conservatives whose primary interest is to reign-in the assault on traditional faith and morality and on the other end are those whose primary concerns are fiscal Conservatism. These folks have advocated less government and lower taxes.

Since Ronald Reagan was president, both of these groups and those who cling to one degree or another to both viewpoints have been moving in the same direction. However, this single nomination by President Bush has broken these groups into their component pieces. Frankly, this is a fascinating to watch.

The Democrats have dutifully circled the wagons and braced for major combat but they can’t decide what their target should be. They are furiously spinning in circles waiting for orders from their special interest groups. The Democrats are willing to fight any nominee because their side needs the fundraising opportunity that a Supreme Court vacancy can generate.

Both sides want a knockdown, drag-out fight to vanquish their enemies in the public arena. This fight would be the political spectacle of the 21st Century. The stakes are for the heart and soul of the Republic. The outcome would be the fourth Constitutional period of our country. (1789 to Civil War; then Civil War to New Deal, then New Deal to Bush Court.)

Instead, President Bush has taken a page from Bill Clinton and triangulated a third option. Not since Solomon decreed that each mother should get half of the baby has something so out of the box of conventional wisdom been tried.
Look at the early results. We know from the public record that Harriet Miers is a church going lawyer that has a unique skill set to offer to the position. She teaches Sunday school at a conservative church where she has attended since becoming a born again Christian about 25 years ago. She has managed a law firm of 400 partners—getting that many lawyers to agree is a really big deal. She also has had her turn in trail settings. Plus she has been with George Bush for many years.

Don’t you wonder why the Religious Right is giving each other high fives for this nomination? There is a private record that will never see the light of day but some on the Christian Right have dropped enough hints to read between the lines. There are code words from these pundits that hint at why they are really upbeat. My conclusion after hearing several of the folks in this camp interviewed is that Harriet Miers will be very pro-life, supportive of traditional marriage, and a solid conservative. She may end-up as one of the most conservative jurists on the Court.

The fiscally Conservative folks in the Republican ranks are clueless about these hints that have been offered for our comfort. Since the whole Christian thing is not as important to them, they miss the subtlety of this pick. They want raw meat in the public square and not Bush’s political triangulation. They are not happy. A polite “trust me” from the President is of little comfort to them.

Since almost anything would be an upgrade from the disappointing legacy of Sandra Day O’Connor, they might not opposed Miers but there is no enthusiasm for this pick.

The Democrats are just beginning to realize that Bush skunked them really good with this pick. Again they have no paper trail to use against the nominee. No paper trail means that it will be difficult to mount a unified opposition and there is nothing for their interest groups to use for fundraising except that she is a Christian. Bashing Miers on that score will cause the Democrats to risk dividing their own people. They will lose many—especially the racial minorities—if they push religion too hard. Plus they risk confronting the Constitutional prohibition on test oaths. Not that they care much for the Constitution but this is new ground to desecrate even for them. They still have an institutional memory of JFK and the Catholic issue. They can’t afford to loose the gray-haired New Deal Democrats in the rest homes.

Worse news for the Democrats will be that both of these confirmations (Roberts & Miers) will force them to concede that they are in the minority for the foreseeable future. All they had left was the threat of the filibuster and Bush has found a strategy to take that from them. He turned their tactic for getting Clinton’s judges back on them; “I sorry but that case might come before the Court so I can’t answer that question.”

The next vacancy will occur after the 2006 elections if the nine in black robes (weren’t they the bad guys in Lord of the Rings-fallen greedy kings of men) remain in good health. Why because the Republicans will pickup two or three seats in the Senate and the liberal Northeastern Republicans will cease to be the power brokers (spoilers) in the Senate. At that point it will be game over for the Democrats and then a justice or two will throw in the towel and retire. Bush could end-up with four picks before the end of his second term.

Yeah, I want “red meat” in the public square too but this might be a far sighted gamble with a better payoff at the end. They say the Lord works in mysterious ways, well folks this is one of those instances

Posted by william on 10/13 at 12:15 AM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Newdow is Back

Michael Newdow is back! After failing to get the Pledge of Allegiance banned from Elk Grove’s public schools last year because he lacked standing in the courts, he has brought a new suit on behalf of others.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled today that the Pledge is unconstitutional because it contains the phrased “one nation under God.”

The judge cited the infamous 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco as precedent.

This should clear the way for John Roberts to be appointed Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. This act of judicial activism illustrates why we need conservatives on the Court.

Posted by william on 09/14 at 10:31 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts

It is a strange confluence of events that has lead to John Roberts being elevated from a nominee to Associate Justice to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Think about it. At least four separate events have all occurred to elevate this situation to the �critic mass� necessary to put Roberts in this situation. First was the announced retirement of Sandra Day O�Connor. Second was the selection of John Roberts to fill this vacancy. Third was the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. And fourth was the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

This has resulted in Roberts getting the nod for the Chief spot to insure continuity of leadership such as it is in the Court. I suspect that he will leave most on the existing staff in tact for him first term on the high court.

I am curious why Rehnquist chose to hold on to his spot until the very end. Did he have no other reason keep going other than his work? Was he a good soldier and trying to make it easier for President Bush to fill the existing vacancy? Did he have any issues or concerns about Roberts (who was one of his former clerks)?

Anyway, the whole situation is a good example of how Calvinists view the governance of Christ. God is in control and brings his will to pass in time and space; here not just in the hereafter. Yes, this would mean that Roberts would be God�s choice—if in fact he is confirmed.

In fact all government leaders are in office at the pleasure of the Almighty. Some we view as �good� and are thankful for their time in office but I don�t understand why God allows Nero or Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin. Others seem somewhere in between.

I have faith that Roberts is one of the �good� guys and will help turn our country towards laws and values that honor God. The Court has long been the institution most responsible for pouring-out God�s wrath and judgment on our nation. Perhaps when the Court is reconstituted it can be a vessel for healing our nation.

Posted by william on 09/06 at 05:23 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Friday, July 22, 2005

Roberts Opposition Begins Attacks

Ann Coulter is outstanding in her field. Well yeah; but this time she�s all alone screaming her lungs out. Noooooooo!!

Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt is strutting around like the rooster in the barnyard. He has always advocated John Roberts as one of the top three choices for the Court.

Granted, there is not that much of a paper trail at the Appellate level, but Roberts has an extensive record as an attorney and advocate for causes that Conservatives support.

I trust Hewitt. He has demonstrated good judgment on many issues and Roberts is his friend.

While it is true that only God truly knows a man�s heart; on the outside, Roberts seems to be a good choice. I am amazed that the usual suspects on the Left are already resorting to digging dirt on his wife. They are upset that he is married to a woman that is Catholic and Pro-life. The Left is angry that Roberts might be a rarity in politics, a Catholic that believes in the teachings of the church. This is quite a contrast the lapsed Catholics that dare sit in judgment of him such as DUI Kennedy.

Robert�s family should be off limits to this confirmation process. The fact that the Left has to resort to such tactics is an indication that they lack a �hook� for their fundraising letters.

I think this process will have some delays but Roberts will ultimately be confirmed. Replacing the Chief Justice will be a cakewalk when that time comes but if there is a third opening in the court during the second Bush term, it will be all-out war because this will be the vote that will permanently move the Court to the Right and Liberals will have lost all three branches at this point.

Oh, look for the Chief Justice to retire shortly after Roberts has been confirmed.

Posted by william on 07/22 at 01:47 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Rockin’ Roberts Joins Supremes

John Roberts has been selected by President Bush to replace Sandra Day O�Connor. This is a welcome nomination and a significant upgrade from the retiring Associate Justice.

The political fireworks have finally begun. The New Media v Jurassic Media. Let the games begin!

Posted by william on 07/20 at 10:43 PM
Supreme CourtPermalink
Page 1 of 1 pages